A Case of Misattribution?

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey

That's a considerable addition to the text Phil...I can see that even with my best beer glasses on (Wychwood Hobgoblin tonight) !

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Back in the land of the Vikings, am enjoying an Old Pec-taken in my suitcase- the addition is the sentence in brackets only- but we do know of SB involvement in the case, in the area, and the club (known raids-later date).

Best bitter!
cheers

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Back in the land of the Vikings, am enjoying an Old Pec-taken in my suitcase

Hells teeth Phil, most of us sup the stuff genteelly from a glass!

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hells teeth Phil, most of us sup the stuff genteelly from a glass!

Dave

Hello Dave,

'The Old Peculier Case of the English Viking'
- Arfa Colon Diddlydoo.

Back to the thread- I just cannot equate the killer of Eddowes running BACK towards an area of police manhunting- especially if he KNOWS that he is running into it- AND supposdly with a bloody rag on him. If he wasnt Stride's killer- then I concede he may not have known about the Stride murder.

best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

I'm beginning to think that way myself Phil...though I try to keep an open mind...

Dave

[Bridewell]

Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, Roy, to the extent that here in the UK they can no longer be used as the sole means of convicting a defendant.

Hi Gary,

Can you give a source for this? There is an increasing reluctance by the courts to convict solely on eyewitness testimony, but I'm not aware of any legislation which prohibits it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thankyou. In cases of privacy then yes I see Sec. 3 pt 3. being applicable.
In this case though, Schwartz's story was already in the public domain.
If Schwartz had been called as a witness, and if there is an implied sequence to observe, he would not have appeared anytime before the 5th Oct., among other witnesses who also saw Stride just minutes before her death.

Apart from the witnesses name (Schwartz) what was there left to protect when his story had been public knowledge for a week?


Alternately, if the reason for Schwartz's story being withheld had been soley so as not to tip the villain off, then what happened to Lawende served the same purpose, without keeping the witness out of the Inquest.
Crawford interrupted the questioning with:
"Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

Yet, the press had already given out the description of the man involved in the Berner St. incident along with Schwartz's story.

I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Regards, Jon S.

All this talk of the corner withholdoing evidence is not sitting well.

First of all the coroner holds an inquest for the purpose of determining how a person died.There are no rules of evidence in a coroners court.

The police are obliged to furnish the coroner with all available evidence appertating to that death. The police would not withold statements.

If it became an issue with the testimony of a witness in a coroners court likely to impede a police investiagtion.The police could have

1. Asked for an adjourment this way the inquest could be formally opened and
then formaly adjourned
2. Asked for the witness to not be named
3. Considered excluding the public and press.

A coroner would not do as has been suggested by some posters.

Clearly Schwartzs testimony would never in a million years be sufficient to charge anyone with a murder let alone convict and the police would have known that.
So another nail in the marginalia coffin and Andersons book.

Add to that the fact that if the ID procedure did ever take place we must assume that the only witness must have been Schwartz. Why did the Met not liaise with the City Police and take Lawende at the same time by another means, or why did the city police not carry out their own ID and test Lawende.

In addittion the ID parade as described in Andersons book would appear to have been what is known as a direct confrontation which has an evidential value of almost nil.

The police would have know this so if this is correct why did they embark on a course or action which was doomed to fail as soon as they left London, even without the witness subsequently refusing to give evidence.

So thats two more nails in the marginalia and Andersons book how many more must be hammered in before its laid to rest once and for all?

[Cogidubnus]

Which particular set of rules are you envisaging the Coroner following Trevor? Surely not those pertaining when you were on the job?

The particular set of rules which applied at the time were laid down in the Coroners Act of 1887. These rules have since been heavily modified, and indeed this Act was eventually totally repealed in, I think, 1988.

It is interesting to note that the Coroners Acts of 1887, 1892, 1926, 1954, 1980, 1983 and 1988 have all been either totally or partially repealed in the process of effecting the current situation laid down by the Act of 2009 (not to mention parts of the various Criminal Justices Acts, Local Government Acts, Juries Acts etc etc)...

Tempora mutantur...Cicero I think...different times mate!

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

Can you give a source for this? There is an increasing reluctance by the courts to convict solely on eyewitness testimony, but I'm not aware of any legislation which prohibits it.

If memory serves me correctly, Colin, it was a recommendation of the Devlin Report commissioned in the Seventies following a series of wrongful convictions based solely on eyewitness identifications. The way I understand it, the CPS will no longer proceed under such circumstances, though I'm unsure as to whether this has come about as a consequence of statutory regulation or unofficial policy.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

What is known with Lawende is that he was a witness who says he saw Kate and someone around 1:35 near her murder site. We know the police paid for his lodgings and sequestered him. We know he was a witness at the Inquest, that he had some of his statement suppressed. We know he was used later by the police, I believe for Sadler if memory serves....

What we know about Israel is that he was an Immigrant Jew who claimed he was outside an Immigrant Jews club at 12:45am and saw a gentile rough up a lady who is killed minutes later inside the gates.

My italics and bold above represent my belief that his story was a fabrication to place the murderer off club property. Making him an anti-Semite was inspirational genius in my opinion. No one saw Schwartz, no-one saw him flee being chased, no-one heard any cries, no-one saw a Broadshouldered Man or a Pipeman, no-one identifies the address of the dwelling he was supposedly checking on his wife. No-one identifies scuffs on Liz Strides skirt from the scuffle. No-one clearly states Israels relationship to that club, if any.

As I suggested before, if Israel was considered "the" witness then the police were looking for someone other than a "Jack the Ripper" for her murder and based on BSM's description. Because in that story BSM is almost certainly her killer due to time and proximity and expressed physical threat, but in reality, Liz Stride is almost certainly not a victim of any Ripper.

Had there been a desire to mutilate it could certainly have happened given the location and timing. In fact, the yard was empty, unused stables....why kill her in the passageway just inside the gates if you desire some quiet time?

Best regards,

Mike R

[Garry Wroe]

You cannot create a scare about a lone Jack the Ripper stalking the streets of the East End if on the same night there just happened to be another unconnected murder just around the corner, which is why Stride was made to look like the work of Jack.

For my money, Simon, there was nothing conspiratorial in the Stride investigation. In fact, given the pressure under which the Ripper manhunt was being conducted, it would have been positively beneficial to the authorities had the Berner Street killing been rejected from the Ripper series. To my mind it was simple human error rather than anything sinister or underhand that led to the assumption of the double event. If we require an illustration of how such mistakes can occur, there is no better example than that of the Geordie Hoaxer amid the Yorkshire Ripper manhunt.

What do you think became of the person who actually did murder Elizabeth Stride?

The fact that Stride screamed three times but ‘not very loudly’ whilst under attack by Broad Shoulders suggests to me a pre-existing relationship between the two. At any rate Stride did not appear to believe that she had fallen into the hands of the man who had previously murdered Nichols and Chapman. I incline to the view, therefore, that Stride was a one-off committed in a fit of rage that the killer probably never repeated.

[Lechmere]

And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.

[Michael W Richards]

And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.

Three women were killed that same night, by knife to the throat. Rare?

No-one is suggesting coincidence, more aptly, contrivance. An effort to leave someone in a condition matching a Ripper victim. I cannot imagine a more attractive possibility for a killer should he find himself killing during that Fall....for whatever the reason.

Rip her, and any other potential motive seemingly vanishes.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lechmere,

it was the Coroner who mentioned the possibility of a copycat killing.
Didnt seem so implausible to him.

Best wishes

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.

A knife murder, Lechmere, that exhibited not a single one of those features which appeared consistently across the four definitely attributable Ripper killings.